Iran: Reacting to Obama

While trying hard to make out Obama's political worldview and priorities, Iranian factions act according to political exigency, Kamal Nazer Yasin writes for ISN Security Watch.

Like in many other Muslim countries, the presidential victory of Barack Obama has been something of a bombshell for Iranians of every persuasion. Given over to conspiracy theories of various kinds, most simply refused until the last second to believe that a black American would be allowed to win the US presidential race. Having failed in their predictions, Iranians are now doubly intrigued by the Obama phenomenon.  

In addition, Iran's political establishment shares the sense of fascination with Obama's victory. On the one hand, the president-elect's life story as the son of an immigrant Muslim father resonates deeply with the myth of the underdog that so seizes the Iranians' imagination. On the other hand, his clearly stated positions on Iran's nuclear program rattle and unnerve the political classes.   

So, now the question is whether to love him or hate him.

For Iran's myriad political factions and groupings, the issue of what to make of President-elect Obama has become something of a cottage industry. Currently, hundreds of political analysts and observers are busy scrutinizing Obama's every gesture and statement for clues to his personality and worldview.

Below is a canvass of various views on the subject by Iran's most influential commentators and power centers:

The Iranian presidential camp

Two days after the 4 November election, the world learned that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's radical anti-American president, had sent a surprisingly warm message to Obama, congratulating him on his victory and expressing the hope that he could start a new era.

For those who had followed Ahmadinejad's trajectory in the last few months, the move wasn't all that surprising. As Ahmadinejad has moved recently to distance himself from the old bastions of conservative support - namely the traditionalist clergy and the bazaaris - he has been anxious to woo new voting blocs, such as the secular middle classes, for his presidential bid next year. Observers believe an important plank of the new strategy would consist of casting himself as a world peacemaker.  

Pro-Ahmadinejad hardliners

These groups encompassing various clerical, nonclerical and paramilitary power centers have been divided over Ahmadinejad's letter and the prospects for peace with Obama.

Some groups, involving both clerics and non-clerics, have taken to defending Ahmadinejad's line, while others have taken to criticizing it. Among those defending the pro-Obama line is the far-right website external pageRajanews, which in its 12 November posting made a startlingly positive analogy between JFK and Obama.

"In terms of a great spirit and of personal charisma, many people liken Obama to John F Kennedy." That's why, according to the website, "there is a great danger facing Obama's life."

Similarly, Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi, the hardline Friday prayer of the city of Shiraz, defended Ahmadinejad's letter by saying that it reflected "our president's elevated self-confidence."

He added, sympathetically: "He [Obama] is that country's first black president. He has taken over the presidency in conditions where there existed mass discrimination against black Americans until very recently."

Another prominent hard-line ayatollah, also of pro-Ahmadinejad proclivities, Elm'ul Hoda, took a decisively different tack. He said in his Friday prayer sermons in the city of Mashad: "It is foolhardy to think US policy changes with personnel changes. Satan is Satan, whether white or black doesn't matter."

Anti-Ahmadinejad hardliners

These groups, mostly clerics, were understandably upset with the letter or were hoping to make political hay out of it. Their main newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, ran several editorials lambasting the notion that positive changes could come out of Obama's victory.

In its 10 November editorial, the paper reminded Ahmadinejad that if the purpose of his letter-writing was to probe possible openings with the US, it was only the Supreme Leader that could have legally written such a letter or ordered one. It further added a cautionary note by calling attention to Obama's accusations against Iran and by mentioning the name of Obama's chief of staff, Rom Emanuel, who holds an Israeli passport.

"Over the last 30 years, both the Democrats and the Republicans have proven to be equally at odds with the Iranian people. Obama's victory should be seen in this context," the editorial said.

Centrists

These groups generally took a rather mild criticism of the letter by trying to give an objective view of the situation. Typical of these were two articles in the influential news weekly Omid-e Javan, printed in its 15 November issue.

In one article, the author called the US presidential election "the triumph of democracy" - words not normally reserved for the United States. However, the author warned its readers that it was demeaning for a country with a history spanning several thousand years to beg for respect from other countries. "In addition," said the author, "the Republicans usually win their battles with guns and bullets, while the Democrats do so through more subtle means."

The article ended by warning the country's politicians not to make hasty moves or statements that would benefit the incoming US administration.

More or less the same conclusion was reached by the second author who warned the country's leaders against looking at the surface phenomenon at the expense of the reality, which according to the author showed that in their foreign policy, the Democrats have been no less war-mongering that the Republicans. "By calling for unconditional talks with Iran," added the author, "Obama is throwing the ball right into our court since we would have to talk under the Security Council umbrella, which is ill-disposed to us."

The article concluded by saying that Ahmadinejad's letter was misguided.

Reformists

In general, reformist groups applauded Ahmadinejad for writing the letter. However, they mostly questioned whether the new US administration could work with someone as erratic as Ahmadinejad.

For instance, in a seminar on foreign policy at the prestigious Department of Law and Political Science at Tehran University, Mohsen Aminzadeh, a former undersecretary of state under the reformist president Khatami, said that if democracy was allowed to advance in Iran and if foreign policy was geared to building confidence with the outside world, then there "can be hope of a change."

Aminzadeh - who was also a top advisor to Khatami - added that a reformist government could save the day. Clearly addressing himself to people like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who would have the final word on next year's election, Aminzadeh said: "The Obama-Khatami duo has truly the potential to get us out of this crisis on the condition that the totality of the system lends a hand. If the present adventurist foreign policy is allowed to continue, there can be little chance of an improvement in US-Iran relations."

Aminzadeh warned ominously: "If the radicalism trend continues, he [Obama] would behave even more harshly toward us than Bush."

The nuclear flashpoint

Clearly absent from most of these debates is the issue of Iran's nuclear program since any putative confrontation between the Obama administration and Iran is surely to be centered on that highly contentious issue.

This is no accident. Iran's Supreme National Security Council has forbidden the Iranian media from discussing the issue publicly outside the official framework. There are exceptions, though. The radical reformist website Emruz has one or two frank discussions on the topic, but the site is filtered by the authorities, and few people would read the site even without the heavy filtering. 

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in its last two reports claimed that Iran was quickly reaching important milestones in its nuclear program. For instance, in his last report to the IAEA board of governors released on 19 November, Mohammad ElBaradei said that Iran had made 630 kilograms of low-enriched uranium which, if true, meant that Iran has achieved significant steps, should it decide to move toward a "breaking-out" threshold.

There are no indications that the country's policymakers are willing to jettison the uranium enrichment program now or at a later date. Therefore, as far as Iran's national security establishment is concerned, a major confrontation with the next US administration is not outside the realm of possibility at all. This takes on added urgency as it is slowly dawning on the Iranian leadership that an Obama administration could be far more effective in isolating Iran than its bumbling predecessor could have ever hoped. That's why, according to former minister of industry and reformist leader Behzad Nabavi, many in Iran's military and security establishments had hoped for a McCain rather than an Obama victory on 4 November.  

In past days and weeks, the daily Kayhan, the newspaper most closely associated with Iran's security and intelligence quarters, has been running a series of articles about the alleged pro-Zionist tendencies of Obama's inner circle; clearly preparing its legions of hard-line readers for the possible souring of relations between the two states.

For now though, like across the world, the country's leaders are waiting for the first clear signs of a foreign policy orientation from the next administration.

Alaedin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee, told the newspaper Khorshid that while everyone was holding out hope of a possible thaw of a change in US policy, no one was harboring any illusions.

"Obama is only one element in the web of power," he said, "there are also power centers, capitalists, cartels, oilmen, arms merchants […]. That's one side of the coin. The other side is the anger of American people at Bush policies […]. Therefore my sense is that Mr Obama would have to implement some policy changes. The future would tell us if he could effectuate meaningful changes on the conservative thinking and practices. We are waiting to see what Mr Obama's reply to Mr Ahmadinejad's letter will be."

Finally, Tabnak, published by former Revolutionary Guards commanders, disregarding Obama's uncompromising stand on Iran's nuclear program, predicted optimistically that Obama's reply to Ahmadinejad's letter would set off a series of written exchanges between the two leaders.

"The White House's decision to move on the path of diplomatic engagement would begin after Iran's election," it said. 

JavaScript has been disabled in your browser